中国英语辩手辩论能力发展的个案研究

Wang Liqing
{"title":"中国英语辩手辩论能力发展的个案研究","authors":"Wang Liqing","doi":"10.22158/selt.v9n4p56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to explore and analyze the argumentative competence of Chinese debaters by observing the fallacies they made in one semester’s English debate course. The 8 rounds of debates are selected, of which three teams participated in 2 of the prepared debates and 2 fixed impromptu debates respectively. It is evident that of the five categories of fallacies, relevance-related, sufficiency-related and acceptability-related fallacies were the most common fallacies compared with structural-related fallacies and rebuttal-related fallacies. In prepared debate, the debaters’ argumentative skills in relevance, sufficiency, acceptability, structure, and rebuttal improved but in impromptu debate, this trend did not exist, revealing the debaters’ argumentative competence was unstable and varied from team to team.","PeriodicalId":198566,"journal":{"name":"Studies in English Language Teaching","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Case Study on the Development of Chinese EFL Debaters’ Argumentative Competence\",\"authors\":\"Wang Liqing\",\"doi\":\"10.22158/selt.v9n4p56\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aims to explore and analyze the argumentative competence of Chinese debaters by observing the fallacies they made in one semester’s English debate course. The 8 rounds of debates are selected, of which three teams participated in 2 of the prepared debates and 2 fixed impromptu debates respectively. It is evident that of the five categories of fallacies, relevance-related, sufficiency-related and acceptability-related fallacies were the most common fallacies compared with structural-related fallacies and rebuttal-related fallacies. In prepared debate, the debaters’ argumentative skills in relevance, sufficiency, acceptability, structure, and rebuttal improved but in impromptu debate, this trend did not exist, revealing the debaters’ argumentative competence was unstable and varied from team to team.\",\"PeriodicalId\":198566,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in English Language Teaching\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in English Language Teaching\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v9n4p56\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in English Language Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v9n4p56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究旨在通过观察中国辩手在一学期的英语辩论课上所犯的谬误,来探讨和分析中国辩手的辩论能力。共进行8轮辩论,其中3支队伍分别参加了2场预备辩论和2场固定即兴辩论。可见,在五类谬论中,相关性谬论、充分性谬论和可接受性谬论是最常见的谬论,其次是结构性谬论和反驳性谬论。在准备辩论中,辩论者在相关性、充分性、可接受性、结构和反驳等方面的辩论技巧有所提高,但在即兴辩论中,这种趋势并不存在,这表明辩论者的辩论能力是不稳定的,并且因团队而异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Case Study on the Development of Chinese EFL Debaters’ Argumentative Competence
This study aims to explore and analyze the argumentative competence of Chinese debaters by observing the fallacies they made in one semester’s English debate course. The 8 rounds of debates are selected, of which three teams participated in 2 of the prepared debates and 2 fixed impromptu debates respectively. It is evident that of the five categories of fallacies, relevance-related, sufficiency-related and acceptability-related fallacies were the most common fallacies compared with structural-related fallacies and rebuttal-related fallacies. In prepared debate, the debaters’ argumentative skills in relevance, sufficiency, acceptability, structure, and rebuttal improved but in impromptu debate, this trend did not exist, revealing the debaters’ argumentative competence was unstable and varied from team to team.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信